February 23, 2008

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” [NYT executive editor Bill Keller said.] “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

"Ignores" is putting it way too mildly. It's a ludicrous argument. It would mean that editors could purvey all sorts of trash as long as it is embedded it in a larger story. And when we get outraged, they could look down their noses and insult us about our poor reading comprehension.

50 comments:

It was a trashy piece and I wish that Obama (who I support) would have expressed a bit of outrage to signal that he's capable of calling bullshit on the media even when they fawn over him. As much as I like the everything the NYTimes puts out on Sunday, when it comes to investigative journalism the Post has it beat ten times over.

The Republicans will come to view this sandbag job, very correctly, as the equivalent of the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes story about Bush's National Guard service: written and released to help the Democrat candidate, no more, no less.

It's still early, too. I'm sure that there are more sandbags to come, not only from the Times, but from CBS and the other members of the MSM.

The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.

They print three paragraphs about McCain and Iseman plus a picture of her looking very attractive then they go on about other stuff. If the article was about the above quote, they didn't need the other stuff. If it was about the other stuff, they didn't need Iseman.

The Iseman angle was a hook to lure in readers. It lured in readers but ultimately backfired. Now they're playing politician themselves trying to explain it away.

You know The Times is in trouble when the public editor - usually a reliable shill - has problems with the story. And when 4,000 people, many of whom are Dems and Indies, email in to express their objections. And when McCain has his best fundraising day ever.

It would mean that editors could purvey all sorts of trash as long as it is embedded it in a larger story.

Since when is this a new phenomenon?The 'MSM' during the Clinton years would always report any and all accusation against Bill Clinton under the reasoning that they weren't commenting on the accusation but merely they were reporting on the reporting of others.I agree the NYT used the rumor of an alledged affair to hook into a story about possible influence peddling, however what ties both things together to me, is the quote they use from McCain's book citing the damage that even the appearance of impropriety is something the politician has to avoid. Whether or not McCain did something either immoral, unethical, or illegal I have no idea. But the fact that members of his own campaign seemingly felt the appearance of impropriety was possible enough to confront him is to me an important factor.

Hmm, did the Times blackmail (no other word) McCain into providing more documents?

E.g., "Senator, we have allegations from former staffers that you had an improper relationship with a lobbyist. We're going with it unless you can show us evidence disproving the story."

So, McCain gives them material and they dig into it trying to find other dirt.

Woodward is famous for playing sources off others. He'll get one source to talk and then use that damaging information against another source who has to respond. Otherwise, Woodward will go with his allegations unanswered.

Actually, the NYT has clearly stated that already, and I believe them. That, however, is all I believe in this story so far. My instinct is the NYT got rushed into publishing; otherwise they would have held it for later. Much later. Such as a few days before the general election.

McCain is bloody lucky. This same story could have come out at a far worse time, or from a paper that generates less immediate suspicion than the NYT.

I'll repeat that I think McCain is lucky when you consider the possible alternatives that could have happened with the same set of facts... and add in the fact that McCain's fundraising has gotten a boost and his antagonists on the right have been at least temporarily distracted. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

It's possible this story can mutate again - today, tomorrow or in late October. But, IMHO, McCain's gained some immunity on this story, and so far it's helped him more than hurt him.

But maybe I misunderstood you as much as you apparently misunderstood me, and the lottery you wrote about was fundraising. In that case I do agree - he has indeed won.

The piece was all about the alleged affair. The lobbying part was only to give the reason for the relationship. That's why they ran the picture of her in a party dress with the story.

BTW, why did they do that? She's described as a lobbyist with business before McCain directly relevant to his committee. So why publish a picture of her in a gown like that? Didn't they have a photo for her in a business suit?

Of course, it doesn't have anything to do with that. They were trying to sex up the story with that picture. The story was about the affair.

But think for a minute about the effect of the story on Ms. Iseman. She's just had her professional reputation ruined and she's been trashed as a harlot. McCain will probably overcome this but her career may be ruined.

And sitemeter says that visitor #12,345,678 was from Carnegie Mellon, and they were looking via google when to wear black or nude pantyhose. Not with shorts, I tell ya. No, the search found this post. All of the Winter Olympics skating posts were great.

I hope for McCain's sake that this query has nothing to do with his campaign.

Editors control what happens in the newsroom. They are the reporters' bosses. They *edit* their copy. Hence the name.

Your assertion is the editorial board that writes the newspaper editorials and handles the op-ed pages must be the same as the newsroom editors responsible for what fills the news holes? I don't think larger newspapers work in this fashion, but again I have no newspaper experience.

Your assertion is the editorial board that writes the newspaper editorials and handles the op-ed pages must be the same as the newsroom editors responsible for what fills the news holes?

I said editorial board.

You said "editorial board that writes the newspaper editorials".

I was talking about Keller et al.

If MoDo and Collins were involved, I don't know. But I was talking about the editorial board that are the bosses of the writers and decide what gets published and what doesn't. You moved the goalposts, not me.

In your original post in this thread, you pointed to the apparent incongruence between the NYT endorsing McCain (for the purposes of the NY primary, of course) while at the same time working on a hit piece on him. You postulated that either the NYT felt this story was minor or, more nefariously, was trying to promote McCain so they can cut him down later.

I have very little regard for the NYT, but I don't think either option is very likely. It is much more likely that the editorial board that writes the editorials and endorsements operates independently from the news side of the NYT that was doing what they passed off as an "investigation". Both involve "editors" of course but they need not be the same people, and very, very likely are not. Why should the left hand know what the right hand is doing?

As far as I know, Keller does not write editorials, and so had nothing to do with the endorsement of McCain for the NY primary. Hence the third option I offered.

Yes, people will assume that an old coot is having an affair with a blonde half his age if they see her with him all the time. That was kinda the point of the article -- that McCain's actions could be misconstrued to his detriment.

But, a man could be swayed by the attentions of a young babe even if he never got to slip it in. Therefore he could be technically faithful and still be improperly influenced by this lobbyist.

The Republicans will come to view this sandbag job, very correctly, as the equivalent of the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes story about Bush's National Guard service: written and released to help the Democrat candidate, no more, no less.

There are some points in common, but the release helps the Republican candidate, not the Democrat:

1. Released well before the election, not on election eve where it couldn't be rebutted.2. Little or no basis in reality: The Bush Air Guard documents were transparently faked -- even a retard would have used a typewriter font like Courier New if he couldn't find a Selectric.3. Benefits from the Boy That Cried Wolf effect -- once this story has been played and found unconvincing, not even the appearance of a real woman who really had been pollinated by Gramps will sway the voters' mind.

The editorial board that approves the pieces of news to run is not the same as the opinion editors, but it is the same as the editors who decide to run uncredited editorials in the name of the New York Times.

"[T]he news department of The Times and the editorial page are totally separate operations that do not consult or coordinate when it comes to news coverage and endorsements or other expressions of editorial opinion. We in the newsroom did not speak to anyone at the editorial page about the story we were working on about Senator McCain. They did not consult us about their deliberations over endorsements of the presidential candidates."

Without wishing to be seen as someone who is defending the NYT or the particular hit piece in question, which I also found thinly sourced and of questionable motivation, I find this explanation believable. Others, if they wish, can claim the NYT is lying about this, and such claims -- like the NYT's own assertions against McCain -- should be supported with proof.

"[T]he news department of The Times and the editorial page are totally separate operations that do not consult or coordinate when it comes to news coverage and endorsements or other expressions of editorial opinion. "

The point of the story was the NYT creating an opportunity to say "Keating five" over and over again. Plus, being open-minded, all-embracing, open-armed Liberals (large L), they misread the conservative (small c) mind and project umbrage at the impression of misbehavior, or imagine it, or hope for it.

Let's forget about McCain for a while, and think about what that article did to the reputation of Ms. Iseman. The picture of her in a sexy looking party dress, and an insinuation that she gets things done by putting out, is going to be far more damaging to her reputation that what McCain will face. What can she do to get her good name back?

Actually, the NYT has clearly stated that already, and I believe them."

That is possibly the stupidest thing I can say I've seen actually written and claimed as a belief.

That 'firewall' the NY Times claims to have in place is a myth; Keller knows exactly what is going down on both sides of that divide, so saying the newsroom's doings are unknown to the editorial/Op-Ed end of the aisle is downright dumb.

That is possibly the stupidest thing I can say I've seen actually written and claimed as a belief.

While excising any statement from its context can weaken or alter it -- something newspapers like the NYT understand possibly more than yourself -- it remains that if what I wrote was "possibly the stupidest thing" you've ever "seen actually written", I suggest you have lived a charmed and well protected life and I, for one, salute you :-)

I am most distressed by how easy it is to suspect, or perhaps expect, that a woman who has a friendly professional relationship with a man is also sexually involved with him. Every time I think women have gained parity, evidence shows me we haven't.

FWIW, Keller also said in the online chatlinked earlier by Mr. Fovell that the gowned pic of the lady was the only one they could find that they could buy from a proper source.

I am most distressed by how easy it is to suspect, or perhaps expect, that a woman who has a friendly professional relationship with a man is also sexually involved with him. Every time I think women have gained parity, evidence shows me we haven't.

I have a friendly professional relationship with my dentist, yet you don't see the two of us together all the time. Plus he already has all my dental business; hanging out with me could not have an ulterior motive. In contrast, Iseman is in the business of seeking favors from politicians, and McCain is a politician in a position to grant favors to hot blondes half his age.

christy:1. Yes, she spent more time with McCain than was typical for lobbyists. According to the NYT article she had begun showing up so frequently in his offices and at his campaign events that staffers wondered why she was "always around."

2. Their relationship was likely improper either because of the influence she had over him, or because they were having a love affair. It is possible but unlikely that they were such great pals that she was always to be found in his company.

First, what was their relationship? Professional, personal, or romantic? Lobbyists, like everyone else, must choose how to spend their time.

Professionals prioritize their time and efforts to yield the biggest rewards. If their relationship was professional, one could conclude from the amount of time she spent with him that she was getting a real payoff from McCain, in terms of legislation and political influence. This is improper.

If their relationship was strictly personal, spending so much time with McCain must have been enjoyable and gratifying to her. How this could be is not clear to me.

On the other hand, if their relationship was romantic, spending a lot of time together is consistent with being infatuated.

From the NYT:

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet...Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”